Your fact-checks will appear here
Known CSAM is identified primarily through hash-based matching—cryptographic and perceptual “digital fingerprints” compared against centralized hash repositories maintained by law‑enforcement, nonprof...
ISPs use an array of network- and content-level techniques to detect and block child sexual abuse material (CSAM), most commonly URL and DNS blocklists, hash‑matching of known images/video fingerprint...
Hash-matching detects known child sexual abuse material (CSAM) by converting images or video frames into compact digital fingerprints (“hashes”) and comparing them to curated databases of verified CSA...
Tech firms detect known CSAM mostly by hash-matching: converting images/videos into perceptual or cryptographic hashes and comparing them to verified databases such as PhotoDNA and other vendor lists ...
Platforms in 2025 use a mix of legacy and emerging techniques: hash-matching against databases for known CSAM, predictive/machine‑learning classifiers to flag novel or modified images and videos, and ...
Law enforcement can build CSAM investigations using non-file evidence: financial tracing (including cryptocurrency on‑chain analysis) to identify operators and cash-outs , platform reports and hash‑ma...
Tech companies and law enforcement primarily find people who view or host CSAM by matching content against known-hash databases (PhotoDNA, PDQ, TMK and others) and by using AI classifiers to flag nove...
Platforms that detect apparent CSAM are legally required in the U.S. to report it to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC); companies use hash-matching and machine-learning cl...
Platforms primarily rely on a two-tier technical stack to detect CSAM: hash‑matching (cryptographic and perceptual) to find known content, and to flag novel or altered material; supplementary approach...
Platforms in 2025 combine legacy hash‑matching with new AI classifiers, third‑party moderation vendors, industry signal‑sharing and legal reporting obligations to detect and remove AI‑generated CSAM; ...
ISPs and platforms rely mainly on automated detection: hash-matching (exact and fuzzy), machine‑learning classifiers, URL/DNS blocklists and metadata heuristics to surface known or likely CSAM; many c...
Prosecutors and tech companies primarily rely on automated detection (hash-matching and AI classifiers), preserved provider records and digital forensics to build cases about users who viewed CSAM, in...
Several major AI companies publicly commit to detecting and reporting child sexual abuse material (CSAM) to authorities or intermediaries such as the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (...
Tech platforms and law enforcement should combine rapid reporting, rigorous preservation, and advanced detection while supporting victims and ensuring legal clarity; Thorn and industry guidance call f...